Mother
Patricia Tallman appeals pro se from the family court’s order, which
affirmed its previous award of custody of the parties’ children to f=
ather
Dorick Tallman II and its dismissal of a final relief-from-abuse order aga=
inst
father.*Mother argues that the court̵=
7;s
findings are not supported by the evidence, and its conclusions are not
supported by its findings.F=
ather
has not filed a brief despite a January 2005 order from this Court to do
so.We find the court’s
conclusions sufficiently supported by the record, and we therefore affirm.=

Mother
and father are the parents of two minor children.The parties divorced for the seco=
nd time
in November 2003, and the family court awarded custody of the parties̵=
7;
children, then aged six and eight, to father.The court also dismissed a
relief-from-abuse order against father as improvidently granted.Mother appealed to this Court, an=
d we
reversed and remanded for additional findings.Tallman v. Tallman, No. 20=
03-525
(Vt. July 1, 2004) (unpublished mem.).

After
a hearing at which additional evidence was received, the family court affi=
rmed
its original order and set out additional findings.As to its dismissal of the
relief-from-abuse order, the court explained that there was no credible
evidence in the record of any painful touch—assault—or threat =
of
assault.It stated that an
eyewitness to the alleged assault had testified at the hearing, and she had
made a convincing record that wife had fabricated the assault incident. The court noted that the parties =
had
been engaged in an extended cycle of domestic dysfunction, resulting in
extended separations and dislocation of the children.It explained that the parties had
married and divorced one another twice, and they had been involved in repe=
ated
litigation over relief-from-abuse orders, almost all of which had proved t=
o be
groundless.The court stated=
that
mother’s history of groundless litigation prompted a conclusion that
father had a reasonable fear that continuation of the relief-from-abuse or=
der
would prompt mother to provoke contact, thereby resulting in criminal char=
ges
against father.The court co=
ncluded
that the continuation of the order under these circumstances would create a
further injustice, and it therefore upheld its order dismissing the final
relief-from-abuse order as improvidently granted.

Turning
next to its custody award, the court reviewed the criteria set forth in 15
V.S.A. § 665(b), and made findings with respect to each factor.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The court found that the parties =
had
experienced a tumultuous relationship over the years, marrying and divorci=
ng
each other more than once.It
explained that mother had repeatedly left the marital home during the marr=
iage,
and she often signaled her departure by filing a petition for a
relief-from-abuse order.The=
court
found that the history of these orders showed that mother did not have ade=
quate
evidence to support her claims. The
court stated that mother had moved four times in the last three years, from
place to place with little long-term stability.The court also found that mother =
had an
inconsistent work history, and she had a medical history of long-term
anxiety.As the court explai=
ned,
mother’s propensity to abandon domestic settings transcended the
marriage—she had recently been involved in another relationship lead=
ing
to marriage, and after ninety days of marriage, she was getting divorced, =
and
was looking for a new home.=
The
court explained that mother’s repeated leaving, and the accompanying
litigation, had created substantial disruption for the children—they=
had
left their home, their association with their father, and other important
family members.The court fo=
und
that the children’s lives with mother had been marked by instability=
, and
placing the children with mother would create further disruptions in the
children’s lives.

The
court found that father, in contrast, had weathered the disruptions of the
marriage and remained focused on the care of the children.He had attempted to provide stabi=
lity
for the family, and he had maintained the family home under difficult
circumstances.He withstood a
criminal prosecution for domestic assault that had ended in an acquittal.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He improved the condition of the =
family
home and he provided direct and consistent care to the children.The court found that father appea=
red to
be better suited to provide for the children’s everyday needs, and h=
e was
more capable of maintaining a healthy relationship with mother.The court also found that the chi=
ldren
were doing well with father, and they had also developed a strong and heal=
thy
attachment to father’s parents, who lived nearby.The court rejected mother’s
assertion that father was abusing regulated drugs, finding the claim
unsupported by the record.

Based
on its findings, the court concluded that, on balance, father was the more
stable and more caring custodian of the parties’ children.It thus reaffirmed its earlier aw=
ard of
sole parental rights and responsibilities to father.Mother appealed, arguing that the=
family
court’s findings are not supported by the record, and its findings d=
o not
support its conclusions.Whi=
le
mother correctly asserts that many of the court’s findings are not
supported by evidence in the record, the court’s most significant
findings are supported, and these findings support the court’s concl=
usion
that an award of parental rights and responsibilities to father is in the
children’s best interests.

The
trial court has broad discretion in making a custody determination.Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt=
. 50,
52-53 (2000).The court must
consider all relevant evidence, including statutory factors, and its decis=
ion
must be based on the children’s best interests.15 V.S.A. § 665(b); Gilbe=
rt v.
Gilbert, 163 Vt. 549, 553 (1995).&nbs=
p;
On review, “we will not set aside the family court’s
findings if supported by the evidence, nor its conclusions if supported by=
the
findings.”Payrits<=
/u>,
171 Vt. at 53 (quotations omitted).In conducting our analysis, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, and disregard the effects of modifying
evidence.Hoover v. Hoove=
r,
171 Vt. 256, 258 (2000).

In
this case, the court’s decision turned on its finding that father was
better able to provide consistent care and stability for the children.This finding is supported by the
evidence.Neither party disp=
utes
the tumultuous marital history described by the court.Mother testified that she and fat=
her
first married in June 1996, and divorced in November 1999.They remarried in February 2000, =
and
separated in March 2001.Mot=
her
filed for divorce, and the parties separated between March 2001 to December
2001.They reunited in Decem=
ber
2001, and mother withdrew her divorce petition.They remained together until April
2003.The record shows that,=
while
married to father, mother repeatedly filed relief-from-abuse petitions, al=
l of
which were ultimately dismissed, with the exception of the order currently=
on
appeal.A jury acquitted fat=
her of
domestic assault.Mother
acknowledged that, during the marriage, she repeatedly left the martial ho=
me,
and moved to different locations.Between 2001 and 2004, mother moved her primary residence four
times.It appears that in 20=
01, she
moved from Colchester to Cambridge, and then to Wolcott.In June 2003, she moved to Jeffer=
sonville,
and in February 2004, she moved to Cambridge.During this time, the children sw=
itched
schools several times.Mother
testified to the short duration of her most recent marriage, as well as the
fact that she was again looking for new housing. Based on the evidence, the court
reasonably concluded that mother’s behavior resulted in instability =
for
the children, and her repeated filings of relief-from-abuse petitions serv=
ed to
isolate father from the children. &n=
bsp;

The
court found that father was more capable of providing the children with
stability.Father testified =
that he
had remarried, and the children were happy with their living situation. Father’s parents lived near=
by and
the children saw them almost daily. Father also stated that he had imp=
roved
the family home to make it better suited for the children.Father testified that mother said=
mean
things about him to the children while they were in her care.Father acknowledged using drugs i=
n the
past, but testified that he had been in counseling and he was no longer us=
ing
drugs.Father indicated that=
he had
not worked for three-and-one-half years prior to the hearing due to a shou=
lder
disability but he stated that he had since recovered and was back at work.=
He testified that he had a full-t=
ime job
with a company for which he had worked on-and-off for approximately twenty
years.The court found that =
father
had remained focused on the children during difficult periods in the marri=
age,
and it concluded that father’s behavior demonstrated his soundness.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We defer to the family court̵=
7;s
findings because that court is in a “unique position to assess the
credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence.”Payrits, 171 Vt. at 53 (in=
ternal
quotation marks and citation omitted).&nb=
sp;
The court conclusion that father could offer the children a more st=
able
environment than mother is supported by evidence in the record, and the co=
urt
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that awarding custody of the
children to father was in the children’s best interests.

Mother
next argues that the court erred in dismissing the relief-from-abuse petit=
ion
against father.She asserts =
that
the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence.We disagree.The record supports the courtR=
17;s
finding that no assault occurred.As noted above, an eyewitness to the encounter, April Flood,testified about the incident.She stated that mother had brough=
t a
boyfriend over to her house, and apparently, a minor saw mother having sex=
with
this individual.Father lear=
ned of
this, became upset, and came to Ms. Flood’s home looking for the
children.Ms. Flood testifie=
d that
she did not see father touch mother.She later stated that father had come to her house; mother was stan=
ding in
the doorway, and father brushed by mother, looking for the children.Ms. Flood testified that father
hadn’t intentionally pushed mother, or punched her.While mother asserts that father =
did
abuse her, the family court found Ms. Flood’s account of the incident
credible.We will not distur=
b this
assessment on appeal.Id<=
/u>.We find no error in the courtR=
17;s
dismissal of the relief-from-abuse order.